I don't know. How many people practicing Dzogchen have realized it? You can study a lot or 'get' Dzogchen and still there seems no real difference in terms of reducing Kleshas and so on. On Dzogchen retreats I have met some lovely and beautiful people and all of them have the view that they are following the highest path and aren't they lucky. This sounds a little bitter - but what I mean is there can be a certain arrogance and 'triumphalism' in someone who clings to the Dzogchen view as being superior.And this obviously is an obscuration.It's pretty much what Thrangu Rinpoche said when he talked about how Direct Introduction works - you get a glimpse but if that glimpse doesn't manifest you can get arrogant and waste as much time as if you just relied on intellectual analysis.So if Dzogchen is the highest and most direct path - show me the money. Those wisdom qualities should be shining through. I'm really glad that ChNN is transmitting Dzogchen and I see it is another expression of Buddhadharma but by itself it's not sufficient. It should be part of the larger discourse of Buddhadharma- it works best that way. You know when I was in Merigar there was a lot of arguing about whose turn it was to get onto the Vajra Dance mandala. That seemed kind of indicative. I'm not saying that is in anyway due to a lack of something in the dharma or how it's presented just that people think they 'get' it but clearly have not. I include myself in that category. From my own side I see the benefits of Dzogchen as shining a light on the so-called 'lower paths' - actually making the lower paths much more beautiful. Dzogchen is a key that opens the door to a lot of other dharma - but it's a key. By itself it's not working and makes people arrogant - we all think may be we are the 'one' who out of millions will get it. We cling to the teacher. We look for differences rather than similarities. We disparage other dharma paths. We don't question our conditioning. We don't have the freedom we wanted.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

(I'm assuming that you're talking about the Fruitions of the respective Paths described in your three descriptions, by the way)

I don't think that Pratyekabuddhahood is the aim of Dzogchen. At least it shouldn't be, for most.

After reading a lot on this site about fruitions of Dzogchen , I came to this conclusion. Dzogchen ultimate aim to merge in awarenss which is inherent characteristic of Emptiness. It passes on the Wisdom to Buddha field. And this is what Pratyekabuddha does.

(I'm assuming that you're talking about the Fruitions of the respective Paths described in your three descriptions, by the way)

I don't think that Pratyekabuddhahood is the aim of Dzogchen. At least it shouldn't be, for most.

After reading a lot on this site about fruitions of Dzogchen , I came to this conclusion. Dzogchen ultimate aim to merge in awarenss which is inherent characteristic of Emptiness. It passes on the Wisdom to Buddha field. And this is what Pratyekabuddha does.

After reading a lot on this site about fruitions of Dzogchen , I came to this conclusion. Dzogchen ultimate aim to merge in awarenss which is inherent characteristic of Emptiness. It passes on the Wisdom to Buddha field. And this is what Pratyekabuddha does.

That's not the ultimate aim of Dzogchen.[/quote

I would like you to expand this above statement as to what is ultimate aim of Dzogchen.Dzogchen is being claimed to be part of Buddhism as per writings on this site. Lotus sutra (direct from the mouth of Guatam Buddha) claims that Buddhahood is the ultimate aim of BUDDHAS ONLY.. According to Him BUDDHAS go to Nirvana and not to Emptiness. In Nirvana all Buddhas as one unit protect collected Wisdoms to create better universes.

Ultimate aim of all Buddhadharma is to overcome the aggressive dualism that we are involved in. That's it. If a form of this Buddhadharma promotes a dualistic view then it's not genuine - it's actually not Buddhadharma.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

I know not much but this: Only "not dzogchen" can explain "to another". Since another is idea, an idea which hops in chasing behind ones own thoughts. In these the other-idea arises. So me thought is telling the idea in own grasped thought how to do.

Therefore Dzogchen is master student. The master is not chasing behind his thoughts in which we arise. (look what Garab Dorje said about) He is talking in ones own compassionate (wisdom aspect) nature, there are no others outside of that. There are no others and no me (dualistic fixation) in essence. Therefore an awaken master-student is Dzogchen tradition. The only way for Dzogchen nondual practice.

Debate (solidnesses) in "Dzogchen practice" is delusion. What happens when we watch thoughts and see how smoothly they dissolve? then the door between you and me dissolves like smoke never been.Just two cents...

The only advice is => a master. Rest is keeping ourselves and everyone in dual state.

Andrew108 wrote:Ultimate aim of all Buddhadharma is to overcome the aggressive dualism that we are involved in. That's it. If a form of this Buddhadharma promotes a dualistic view then it's not genuine - it's actually not Buddhadharma.

True. Only awareness/emptiness is non-dualist. Nothing else can exist beyond this. Everything else comes out of it.Yet Buddhadhrma and Buddhas exist along with Dzogchen and others.The ones who claim that they are the ones who are nearest to non- dualism and they have reached that state thro aggressive path can be the best.

This can be understood by the results of fruitation that each path has produced.The chapter in Lotus sutra on "Life of Thus come ones" explains in details the fruitation it has produced so far.I have read fruitation of many paths. In my search nothing ever has even remotly touched Budhadharma.

I have personally lived with fully realised Dzogchen Indian masters (they call them TATAV Masters) during my wanderings in Indian Himalyas, chatted, observed their behaviour, their transmitting powers. They are real achievers, very sure and firm in their in faith and path.They are truely wonderful people, but very few. Yet i believe in Budhadharma. TATAV masters do not contribute their Wisdom to Buddhadharma but only to non_dualist Awarness. Even Buddha cannot shake them out of their path. The experience they go thro is all enevolping and leaves no space for others to enter in. Dzogchen / Tatav has to be personally experienced . They show this charactristic thro their behaviour.

mujushinkyo wrote:Cool discussion, What's the problem? Atiyoga is Sahaja. It's the Natural State. Everybody wakes up to This. Doesn't have anything to do with Buddhism as such.

It has just as much to do with Buddhism as enlightenment has to do with Buddhism. On the level of ground and fruition Dzogchen, or full enlightenment, have nothing to do with methods, the path. But the path is the only way to arrive at the fruition. People are just confusing Dzogchen and the Dzogchenpa here, as Jena-Luc Achard usually says. To much thinking and to little practice.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

mujushinkyo wrote:Cool discussion, What's the problem? Atiyoga is Sahaja. It's the Natural State. Everybody wakes up to This. Doesn't have anything to do with Buddhism as such.

It has just as much to do with Buddhism as enlightenment has to do with Buddhism. On the level of ground and fruition Dzogchen, or full enlightenment, have nothing to do with methods, the path. But the path is the only way to arrive at the fruition. People are just confusing Dzogchen and the Dzogchenpa here, as Jena-Luc Achard usually says. To much thinking and to little practice.

/magnus

Sorry for be honest and not deluding. Concerning this "too much thinking" -the mere intellectual- on Dzogchen, eventually there will be only 2 options: Reductio ad absurdum via Prasangika, or Autonomous Position via Svatantrika. According to the first you will investigate: Dzogchen is "never monotheism, never nihilism, never eternalism..." so on and so foth. According to the second you will investigate: Dzogchen is "always Buddhism".

...Concerning this "too little practice" I was once during Namkhai Norbu's open for all teachings on Dzogchen in Poland, when He "performed" for us the introduction into Rigpa, whatever if we were buddhists or not, because it was open for all in a gymnastics hall of a public school (I don't remember if for buying the ticket you should marked you are a buddhist). More common is first ngondro, so you have to be buddhist, and after it the other elements of the full cycle of Dzogchen, such initiations into the full cycle of Nyinthig, then retreats of khorde rushen, then further instructions on trekcho and retreats....

heart wrote: People are just confusing Dzogchen and the Dzogchenpa here, as Jena-Luc Achard usually says. To much thinking and to little practice. /magnus

It's a lot easier and more entertaining to repeat "Dzogchen is the highest/Zen is the highest/Mahamudra is the highest/my Lama is the highest, etc." on internet forums over and over again, day after day, than doing practice. And you even get some attention, people think you must be highly realized, etc. Don't be a party pooper, please.

Andrew108 wrote:I don't know. How many people practicing Dzogchen have realized it? You can study a lot or 'get' Dzogchen and still there seems no real difference in terms of reducing Kleshas and so on. On Dzogchen retreats I have met some lovely and beautiful people and all of them have the view that they are following the highest path and aren't they lucky. This sounds a little bitter - but what I mean is there can be a certain arrogance and 'triumphalism' in someone who clings to the Dzogchen view as being superior.And this obviously is an obscuration.It's pretty much what Thrangu Rinpoche said when he talked about how Direct Introduction works - you get a glimpse but if that glimpse doesn't manifest you can get arrogant and waste as much time as if you just relied on intellectual analysis.So if Dzogchen is the highest and most direct path - show me the money. Those wisdom qualities should be shining through. I'm really glad that ChNN is transmitting Dzogchen and I see it is another expression of Buddhadharma but by itself it's not sufficient. It should be part of the larger discourse of Buddhadharma- it works best that way. You know when I was in Merigar there was a lot of arguing about whose turn it was to get onto the Vajra Dance mandala. That seemed kind of indicative. I'm not saying that is in anyway due to a lack of something in the dharma or how it's presented just that people think they 'get' it but clearly have not. I include myself in that category. From my own side I see the benefits of Dzogchen as shining a light on the so-called 'lower paths' - actually making the lower paths much more beautiful. Dzogchen is a key that opens the door to a lot of other dharma - but it's a key. By itself it's not working and makes people arrogant - we all think may be we are the 'one' who out of millions will get it. We cling to the teacher. We look for differences rather than similarities. We disparage other dharma paths. We don't question our conditioning. We don't have the freedom we wanted.

I see the same things in a lot, but certainly not all, of the people I've come across in every other Buddhist milieu I've come in contact with. I see it as strictly a problem of people not truly internalizing and integrating with the Dharma they've learned and purport to practice. Not many people generate any serious self-discipline and motivation to study, contemplate, and meditate on the Dharma they're introduced to in a thorough, consistent way. This is obviously not unique to the West though, or to any one yana... Among Tibetan Dzogchen masters, not a one I can think of throughout history has failed to write at least one text dedicated solely to the need to absorb and actually live the Dharma and the risks and dangers of becoming impervious to it. But people have their karma and they make their own choices and only they can choose to make real use of the Dharma.

I can appreciate your concern and compassion for such people, as well as the temptation to tell them to "show you the money" when they seem overly pleased with their "fortune" though they're not a bit more tamed than ever. But there's nothing you can do to change them or make them wise up, and no one really owes anyone else any explanations about their practice and whether they're diminishing their kleshas, etc. What we should be doing is focusing on our own diligence and progress and guide by example. And we can help those who ask for it if we're able to.

Dechen Norbu wrote:The most interesting thing about Dzogchen is that if one has capacity and a qualified teacher, soon it has very little to do with beliefs and much more with letting beliefs crumble.

The same can be said for every Buddhist path, Śrāvakamārga on up.

Yes, indeed. The point I'm trying to make here concerns the "soon" part. The recognition of the primordial state, an event that leaves little or no doubt that should occur soon after you start practicing Dzogchen, comes first. I believe in other yanas you need informed confidence for a little longer until go through an event that helps dissipating doubts as much as recognizing instant presence. I may be mistaken though, but that is how it seems to me.

heart wrote:So why don't you just drop all those unnecessary methods then Dechen? You just keep repeating that they are unnecessary, like a mantra or a dogma, but obviously they are still necessary for you? Am I right?

/magnus

Why should I drop them if they're useful? This doesn't mean they are necessary for everyone or that the view basing the practice is different from Dzogchen.My car is also not necessary for Dzogchen practice, but very useful when it comes to overcome difficult circumstances, like traveling to somewhere far. Does this mean I should throw it away? Secondary practices serve the same purpose. We need to work with circumstances, what can I say? I could drop those methods. I can also travel by foot. This doesn't mean I need to.

So you agree then, you can't make it without them? When ChNNR says that all other methods are secondary it don't mean they are not necessary. Guru Yoga is given paramount importance in all of the three inner Tantras. You can't really say that Guru Yoga belongs to Ati, can you? But still ChNNR repeat over and over again that it is of paramount importance. So methods are of paramount importance, secondary or not.

Dzogchen, or rather the Dzogchenpa, is a part of Buddhism as long as you use the Buddhist methods, even if it is "only" Anuyoga.

/magnus

Yes, I believe you are putting it better than me. Secondary is a better way to put it than unnecessary. For me they seem necessary. I don't know about others, but I believe many people also consider them like that. I just don't know if they are necessary for everyone, like a necessary condition to enlightenment. See my poin? It's a slight difference.

Dzogchen, or rather the Dzogchenpa, is a part of Buddhism as long as you use the Buddhist methods, even if it is "only" Anuyoga.

/magnus

Since the first vehicle, according to the sgra thal gyur, is the vehicle of gods and men, are you stating that when a Dzogchenpa uses the methods of vehicles of gods and men they cease to be Buddhist?

I prefer to think that the Dzoghen practitioner can make use of all methods without regard to whether they are Buddhist or non-Buddhist. If you want to go to a kirtan, go. If you want to go to a Catholic service, go. If you want to go to a prayer meeting, go. If you want to dance with dervishes, go. If you want to attend a sweat lodge, go. If you want to hang out with a shaman, go, If you want to experiment once or twice with Ayuhuasca with a Brazilian shaman, go ahead. If you want to take peyote once or twice with a Mexican shaman, go ahead. If you want to spend time among Shaivite Sadhus, go ahead. If you want to hang out with Bonpos, go ahead. If you want to hang out with Brahmins, then like the Buddha himself, go ahead. Likewise, if you want to practice shrakvayāna methods, then go ahead.If you want to take refuge, and get a nice Tibetan name, then go ahead. If you want to practice Mahāyāna, then go ahead. If you want to take bodhisattva vows, then go ahead. If you want to practice the six levels of outer and inner tantra, then go ahead. Do you as Dzogchen practitioner have to do anything of these things? Nope. Should you criticize others for doing these things? Nope. What is indispensible for a Dzogchen practitioner in the tradition of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu? Ati Guru Yoga and that is all. Other teachers of Dzogchen will see things differently.